The Conservative government’s proposal to remove asylum seekers to Rwanda has always been more a piece of performative cruelty than a practical or strategic policy. It plays to the party and media gallery rather than truly addressing the migration problem. This remains even more true today, following the publication of the government’s draconian and disgraceful safety of Rwanda bill. This reneges on Britain’s human rights laws and brushes the historic role of our country’s courts aside.
The overriding purpose of the policy and the bill is to give voters the impression that the Conservatives have gripped the small boats issue before next year’s general election. Planes taking off for Rwanda make good propaganda. Yet even if the planes were to take off, Rwanda itself has made clear that the numbers removed would only be in the hundreds. The government is fixated on the migration margins, not the mainstream.
The same performative priority applies to the row that exploded among Tory MPs with the resignation of the former immigration minister Robert Jenrick. Mr Jenrick quit because he thinks the new bill is too weak to prevent a repeat of the supreme court’s previous negative verdict on Rwanda removals. In his resignation letter, he calls the bill “a triumph of hope over experience”. On Thursday, his former Home Office boss Suella Braverman backed Mr Jenrick in a feisty interview. “The sorry truth is that it won’t work and it will not stop the boats,” she told the Today programme.
Rishi Sunak faces a perilous party management problem. The decision to put him in front of the cameras for a hasty press conference on Thursday was proof that No 10 can see the danger it is in from his divided party. The prime minister gave an uncharacteristically robust defence of his bill. He said it would block “every single reason that has been used to prevent flights to Rwanda from taking off”. He insisted that there was only an inch of difference between his approach and Mr Jenrick’s. His problem is that many on the right of the Tory party still feel that it doesn’t go far enough, while more liberal MPs fear it goes too far.
With the bill due for its second reading in the Commons on Tuesday (the day after Mr Sunak gives evidence to the Covid inquiry), he does not have much time to rally the votes and calm his MPs. Nor does he have a great well of personal support to tap. His claim to be a safe pair of hands no longer convinces. If he appeases Ms Braverman and her allies, he risks losing support among Tory MPs who still believe in human rights laws. If he accepts liberal calls for some rights to remain in the bill, he inflames the authoritarians on the party right.
Mr Sunak’s authority is more fragile than ever. Many in the party are already thinking ahead to a future leadership contest, whether in this parliament or the next. Ms Braverman is self-evidently on manoeuvres. Mr Sunak said on Thursday that he does not regard Tuesday’s vote as a confidence issue. But, even if he wins, it will be tough to prevent significant defeats at committee stage or in the Lords.
If Mr Sunak loses next week, a vote-of-confidence challenge against him could soon follow. Mr Sunak may be tempted to emulate John Major in 1995 by calling an explicit put-up-or-shut-up confidence vote himself. But that is not a happy precedent. The reality is that his remaining authority would be shot. The pressure for him to call an early general election will increase. And rightly so. By trying to override this country’s long commitment to the rule of law, this government is proving that it can and should no longer govern.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
